In theory, the election of public officials is the best way to govern.
In practice, however, it isn't.

The reason that elections are no longer the best method of selecting
public officials is that elections can be (and usually are) rigged.
The late Josef Stalin reportedly once commented: "It's not who votes
that counts, it's who counts the votes." Over the past twenty years in
the United State there have been myriad occurrences of election fraud;
years ago one precinct reported over 300 votes cast on election day,
but then the ballot box was opened later there were only fifty ballots
in it. Unfortunately that was not an isolated occurrence, many
precincts have reported more votes cast than people who actually voted.

Another problem with elections in this country is voter suppression.
Some suppression is done by local officials, but in my view a bigger
problem is people who hang around polling places for the purpose of intimidating voters.

Yet another problem with elections in this country is the fact that politicians literally buy peoples' votes by promising them all sorts
of "free" government "benefits." Many people will reliably vote for
things they think someone else will have to pay for - and for
candidates who will promise them those things. Unfortunately
those "free" government "benefits" have literally bankrupted this
country's government; the government's funded and unfunded liabilities
far exceed the value of its assets and any reasonable estimate of its
future revenue - and that's a pretty good definition of bankruptcy. It
should also be noted that the government is currently overspending its
income by more than a trillion dollars a year.

Some people, particularly but not exclusively those of the leftist
persuasion, refuse to accept the results of elections and take to the
streets in protests of election results they don't like - that sort of
thing used to be called a riot but today it has become a legitimate
form of political expression. That's one thing I've noted about the
political left wing in this country - they're all for elections - until
they lose one, the presidential election of 2016 being a case in point.

If elections are no longer the best method of selecting public
officials, how should we do it? My personal preference is to eliminate elections entirely and adopt a random selection process that selectes
citizens from within the jurisdiction of the office to serve in the
position for one and only one term of office. This would eliminate
elected office as a full-time career, eliminate the bribery
of "campaign contributions," eliminate the endless campaigning for
office, eliminate legislation designed to put and/or keep politicians
in office, and destroy the power of the political parties. None of
those is a bad idea in my opinion. It might also cause students to pay
a bit more attention in history, civics and government classes.




--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

Am 29 Jul 19 17:19:28 schrob BOB ACKLEY an ALL zum Thema
<Elections>

Over the past twenty years in
the United State there have been myriad occurrences of election fraud; years ago one precinct reported over 300 votes cast on election day,
but then the ballot box was opened later there were only fifty ballots
in it. Unfortunately that was not an isolated occurrence, many
precincts have reported more votes cast than people who actually voted.

Isn't all of this public?
I don't know how it works in the USA, but don't you have volunteers from multiple parties in the polling stations? Don't they have to show the empty ballot boxes to everyone before voting starts? Don't they sit there until all stations close and make sure everyone just puts one ballot into the box? Don't they sort and check them all together in public and then - also in public - count them twice by different persons? Don't the results get published for every polling station?

Another problem with elections in this country is voter suppression.
Some suppression is done by local officials, but in my view a bigger problem is people who hang around polling places for the purpose of intimidating voters.

And by not voting, they would intimidate the ones that you want to select randomly.

Yet another problem with elections in this country is the fact that politicians literally buy peoples' votes by promising them all sorts
of "free" government "benefits."

Don't they lie about that?

Some people, particularly but not exclusively those of the leftist persuasion, refuse to accept the results of elections

And rolling dice would be more likely to be accepted? I doubt it.

If elections are no longer the best method of selecting public
officials, how should we do it? My personal preference is to eliminate elections entirely and adopt a random selection process that selectes citizens from within the jurisdiction of the office to serve in the position for one and only one term of office.

I thought you wanted to come up with having the people make every decision by themselves. But random? First of all, how can you make sure, it actually is random? No one can verify if it was randomness that lead to the result. But assuming it was random, what if you select someone who has Alzheimer's or a mentally handicapped person?



Tschoe mit Oe
Gerhard
---
* Origin: (2:240/2188.575)

Am 29 Jul 19 17:19:28 schrob BOB ACKLEY an ALL zum Thema
<Elections>

Over the past twenty years in
the United State there have been myriad occurrences of election

fraud;

years ago one precinct reported over 300 votes cast on election

day,

but then the ballot box was opened later there were only fifty

ballots

in it. Unfortunately that was not an isolated occurrence, many precincts have reported more votes cast than people who actually

voted.

Isn't all of this public?

It's supposed to be.

I don't know how it works in the USA, but don't you have volunteers

from

multiple parties in the polling stations? Don't they have to show the

empty

ballot boxes to everyone before voting starts?

I don't know.

Don't they sit there until all

stations close and make sure everyone just puts one ballot into the

box?

Supposedly.

Don't

they sort and check them all together in public and then - also in

public -

count them twice by different persons?

I don't know.

Don't the results get published for

every polling station?

Not around here. Results are published for the whole county at one
time, there's no breakout by precinct or polling station.

Another problem with elections in this country is voter

suppression.

Some suppression is done by local officials, but in my view a

bigger

problem is people who hang around polling places for the purpose

of

intimidating voters.

And by not voting, they would intimidate the ones that you want to

select

randomly.

Yet another problem with elections in this country is the fact

that

politicians literally buy peoples' votes by promising them all

sorts

of "free" government "benefits."

Don't they lie about that?

Politicians lie about EVERYTHING, all the time.

Some people, particularly but not exclusively those of the

leftist

persuasion, refuse to accept the results of elections

And rolling dice would be more likely to be accepted? I doubt it.

If elections are no longer the best method of selecting public officials, how should we do it? My personal preference is to

eliminate

elections entirely and adopt a random selection process that

selectes

citizens from within the jurisdiction of the office to serve in

the

position for one and only one term of office.

I thought you wanted to come up with having the people make every

decision by

themselves. But random? First of all, how can you make sure, it

actually is

random? No one can verify if it was randomness that lead to the

result. But

assuming it was random, what if you select someone who has

Alzheimer's or a

mentally handicapped person?

They wouldn't be in the pool of eligibles.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)